The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Heracletus ( talk · contribs)
• Qwerty786 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We disagree with User:Qwerty786 over the article of this Assembly and the article of Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo. The Assembly mentioned is the assembly of the association mentioned. Initially, this association was backed by Serbian and not recognised by Kosovo Albanian authorities. Then, the two governments agreed on such an association in the Brussels Agreement (2013) which would have the exact structure as the previous one. For me this means that the new envisaged association and assembly are clear continuations of the old ones. Furthermore, the Agreement mentions that Serbian-backed courts and police in North Kosovo will be integrated in the Pristina organised judicial and police structures. The exact details of implementation are still under negotiation. Although the Agreement is intended as a compromise and tries to be as neutral as possible mentioning integrations and mergings, User:Qwerty786 keeps repeating that "Serbian structures are abolished" and thus proceeded to remove referenced material from these pages about the previous institutions, association/community and assembly. Even if one agrees that the previous institutions were abolished and not integrated or merged, even though this is contrary to the language of the Agreement, this does not mean that we should vanish all information about the past institutions from wikipedia. Even though, I kept saying this and making the articles representing the new institutions while also mentioning the past ones, and even though the article is under the ArbCom's Balkans decision, the user reverted thrice the page of the Assembly, in order to make the according to him "abolished" past institutions vanish, clearly pushing a POV. It was clearly mentioned that these past institutions were supported by Serbia and not by Kosovo Albanians or UNMIK and that when negotiations are over the new ones will take over. We kept talking about this in our talk pages, but to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to the user on his talk page, explaining what content I wanted to change and why. I did some changes that I think were clearly NPOV, supporting neither side. I tried explaining why his changes were POV. I made a section on the articles' talk pages. I tried asking another user who reverted to provide an opinion on ways to resolve, but he just refused. And, I also tried to get more opinions by posting on wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo.

How do you think we can help?

Obviously, an Agreement that would dissolve something and set something almost exactly similar, would mean that one is the continuation of the other, for example the EU and the European Communities. However, this Agreement does not explicitly dissolve anything, it is formulated to integrate, merge & conciliate, being a compromise. Even if it did dissolve, this is no reason to remove again and again referenced material just because something may no longer exist. I want to reach a NPOV consensus.

Summary of dispute by Qwerty786

I am posting the facts of this entire situation. The Brussels deal is about abolishing all Government of Serbia institutions in Kosovo. This of course includes the Assembly of Municipalities that was formed on the basis of Serbia organized elections in 2008. Just like the police and court systems have been or in the process of being abolished so will all the structures formed from the illegal parallel elections of 2008. The new Assembly of Serbian municipalities can't have the same structure was the assembly formed in 2008 as the result of those elections. The 2013 elections will result in a new assembly that really has nothing to do with the assembly formed as a result of the elections of 2008. Just because two institutions have the word assembly attached doesn't mean they are related in any way. The assembly that will be created soon as a result of Serbs voting in Kosovo run elections doesn't cover the same territory have the same voting methods and more. They are of no relation. Heracletus is trying to push a POV that is not grounded in the reality of what is going on and seems intent on saying even what Belgrade and Serbia isn't saying! Serbia agreed to the Bruseels deal which abolished all Serbian government institutions in Kosovo which includes the now inactive assembly that will very shortly be formally abolished.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=28&nav_id=51459

This article is very important because it talks about 26 municipalities. How can the structure be the same if it is going from 26 to 5 or 6? The structure used is radically different. The municipalities used in the Serbia organized elections don't even exist now in Kosovo law.

The issues of the use of the term Metohija was abolished in Brussels! All you have to do is read the Brussels agreement. Qwerty786 ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities discussion

Can both of you clearly state the outcome that would satisfy you? The statements above are clear about why you each feel differently, but it's hard for me to understand what you want to occur. Homunq ( ࿓) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like the content that was removed to be included. Even if Qwerty786 believes the two structures (old and new) are different, he removed well-sourced material and I find this NPOV and an attempt to make history vanish. By saying that I want this content to be included, I would not be against separating the articles into new and old, but as one can easily see the two articles to be produced from this would be quite short and inevitably they would be merged at some point.

Apart from this, I do not know how we could reach a settlement, however, if Qwerty786's basis of discussion is that the previous structure was illegal as he/she wrote above and so on. It is obvious that yes, indeed, the Serbian side considered the Albanian structures illegal, and still kinda does, and the Albanian side considered the Serbian structures illegal and still kinda does. I really don't understand how agreeing with a single side's view cannot be considered POV.

Therefore, starting from such a position of Qwerty786, it is really difficult to argue with him/her how something that may have changed or even ceased to exist but is highly related to something else (or may have transformed into that something else) and is quite notable, should not just vanish from the article, but stay there. My basis argument would be that the European Communities/European Community may not exist anymore, but they still can be found in the European Union article, even though they had a different structure, different legal standing (the EU now has a legal personality, being able to sign treaties on its own, which was not the case with the EC and so on) and general differences.

I had tried to formulate the articles in a NPOV way. Perhaps, it was my own POV, however, I do not know where to seek adequate and binding mediation and not escalate into an edit war. Heracletus ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I'd like to hear Qwerty786's answer before I ask further questions. (Note: I'm not an official volunteer here; just a passerby trying to help.) Homunq ( ࿓) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to compromise but the only thing that makes sense is a total reversion of the article "Asembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" back to when it was "Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and then when it is finally formed and put into operation have an article about the " Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" or have that be a subset of an article about the "Community of Serbian municipalities" titled "assembly". The major problem is Heracletus believing based on only their own POV that because two entities have the title "assembly" that they are in any way related. They are not related in any way. The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija was formed from illegal Serbia run parallel elections in 2008 and like the Serbia run police and legal system which are going to be abolished means of course anything from the 2008 elections will be abolished. You really have to have a neutral view of the Brussels deal and not see it as any kind of continuation of Serbia autonomy over Kosovo to get things right in this situation. Heracletus is completely wrong in everything they were posting in the The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article and I wrongly retitled the page because they were strident in their belief that the Brussels deal was continuing the "Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" when in fact it was abolishing all Serbia government institutions and creating a new assembly of Serbian municipalities based on strictly Kosovo law and election law and Municipal law. There is major confusion by Heracletus based on two totally different and unrelated institutions sharing the name "assembly." They have no relation. They basis of elections is totally different. There must be a creation of two articles or an "assembly" section of the Community of Serbian municipalities article. All Serbia government institutions in Kosovo are being abolished and there are no parallel institutions including the word "Metohija". Qwerty786 ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put something into perspective, in the text of the Brussels Agreement (2013) the word abolish or any derivatives are simply not mentioned. The text talks about integration and merging (of the police and judicial systems). For the community of Serbian municipalities, it just says that there will be one. There already was one, it just came out of elections you define as illegal (being POV - because they were organised by the Serbians and considered illegal by the Albanians in Kosovo), and the new one is envisaged to come out of the latest elections organised by the Albanian Kosovo government and legitimised also by the Serbian government. However, most of the exact implementation is still under negotiation.

The text of the preliminary Agreement that we do have reads:

• 1. There will be an Association/Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo. Membership will be open to any other municipality provided the members are in agreement.

• 2. The Community/Association will be created by statute. Its dissolution shall only take place by a decision of the participating municipalities. Legal guarantees will be provided by applicable law and constitutional law (including the 2/3 majority rule).

• 3. The structures of the Association/Community will be established on the same basis as the existing statute of the Association of Kosovo municipalities e.g. President, vice President, Assembly, Council.

• 4. In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning.

• 5. The Association/Community will exercise other additional competences as may be delegated by the central authorities.

• 6. The Community/Association shall have a representative role to the central authorities and will have a seat in the communities’ consultative council for this purpose. In the pursuit of this role a monitoring function is envisaged.

• 7. There shall be one police force in Kosovo called the Kosovo Police. All police in northern Kosovo shall be integrated in the Kosovo Police framework. Salaries will be only from the KP.

• 8. Members of other Serbian security structures will be offered a place in equivalent Kosovo structures.

• 9. There shall be a Police Regional Commander for the four northern Serb majority municipalities (Northern Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic). The Commander of this region shall be a Kosovo Serb nominated by the Ministry of Interior from a list provided by the four mayors on behalf of the Community/Association. The composition of the KP in the north will reflect the ethnic composition of the population of the four municipalities. (There will be another Regional Commander for the municipalities of Mitrovica South, Skenderaj and Vushtrri). The regional commander of the four northern municipalities will cooperate with other regional commanders.

• 10. The judicial authorities will be integrated and operate within the Kosovo legal framework. The Appellate Court in Pristina will establish a panel composed of a majority of K/S judges to deal with all Kosovo Serb majority municipalities.

• 11. A division of this Appellate Court, composed both by administrative staff and judges will sit permanently in northern Mitrovica (Mitrovica District Court). Each panel of the above division will be composed by a majority of K/S judges. Appropriate judges will sit dependant on the nature of the case involved.

• 12. Municipal elections shall be organized in the northern municipalities in 2013 with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards.

• 13. Discussions on Energy and Telecoms will be intensified by the two sides and completed by June 15.

• 14. It is agreed that neither side will block, or encourage others to block, the other side’s progress in their respective EU path.

• 15. An implementation committee will be established by the two sides, with the facilitation of the EU.

Furthermore, you keep addressing issues such as whether the envisaged communal association will contain the term Metohija (which is contained in the Serbian (official) name of the region "Kosovo and Metohija" but not in the Albanian name of "Kosovo") which a. I did not argue for or against, b. have no basis on the Agreement or any source, and, c. only serve a particular POV.

My simple point is that the new communal association comes from the same Agreement that you claim abolishes the old one, is voted by the same people (residents of the Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo) as the old one, has the same structure (incl. the assembly) as the old one and basically does the same thing (as in that it represents the people of these municipalities). However, the only differences are: that the new one is recognised by Albanians, too, that it come out of elections recognised by Albanians, too, and that it does not have broad legislative and executive powers as the old one, but rather has "full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning". In my eyes this is a compromise in the form that the Serbian-majority communal association was recognised by the Albanian side in return for it exercising no legislative power against the central parliament (which is controlled by the Albanians).

These points of differences and similarities were explicitly stated in the content that you removed.

I also counted two times a form of the verb "integrate" (one for the police and one for the judicial system) and no time the verb "abolish" being on the Agreement. Heracletus ( talk) 00:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

All you are posting are from a POV that says the old assembly is a continuation of the old one. Just like there is no word abolish there is no work continuation. There is the word integrate with police and judiciary but it is explicit that it is under Kosovo law and not Serbia law and therefore the Serbia role is abolished where it existed before. Because the elections conducted by Serbia have always been considered invalid and illegitimate none of it is even mentioned! Serbia even has just erased the whole concept unlike the Judiciary and Police where they are abolishing their powers and all police and court people are being integrated under Kosovo law. You keep posting all the Brussels Agreement but the Brussels Agreement supports my neutral POV and you are trying to fit into a POV that's not even Serbia's POV. I don't even know what POV you are pushing? Qwerty786 ( talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're being so neutral on insisting to call the elections organised by Serbia in 2008 "illegal", "invalid and illegimate" and drawing conclusions about the position of Serbia or anyone else which are not there, that I do consider turning myself in for WP:ARBMAC more and more as time goes by. You kept insisting that the police and justice system would just be abolished, in fact that it has already been abolished, now you finally agree that it is to be integrated. Perhaps, if I post the whole text another 15 times, you may stop coming up with your own conclusions over anyone's position and read what it says. Heracletus ( talk) 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You really just fundamentally just don't understand what is going on in this situation. The Serbian police officers and legal system people are going to continue in those positions - or can if they want to- but the Serbia institution they worked for is being abolished in Kosovo and they will be integrated into the Kosovo institutions. The people are being integrated but the systems are not. THe serbia institutions are all being abolished. You don't understand what is going on. You need to stop editing the articles. You are blinded by your pov. Brussels is clear. It is crystal clear. One government in Kosovo. All Serbian institutions run by Serbia are abolished. Stop being biased. Read the brussels agreement. Read Serbia laws on foundations of police judiciary and elections in 2008. You need the right information. Qwerty786 ( talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited these articles since 10 April, for almost a month... Your edits were the last and I tried to avoid a real edit war. Furthermore, the Agreement explains a bit on what is to happen about police and courts and the rest is under negotiation. Moreover, about the government, the Agreement makes no comment. This Agreement tries to be neutral on such issues, by not mentioning anything about the central government and so on. I'm really not sure what exactly you think the Agreement means between the Pristina and Belgrade governments, apart from what exactly it says. Heracletus ( talk) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice

Reaper's process

Hi, I'm a volunteer at DRN that gets called in to help clean up threads that have laid for far too long on the DRN board without any forward progress. I'd like to recap to make sure that I understand the positions Heracletus and Qwerty786...

@ Heracletus: Your viewpoint is that the content you inserted in this diff should remain in the article?

@ Qwerty786: Your view is that the content removed in these diffs should not be included?

Yes. Heracletus included the word "probably" so the details aren't even that clear. What is clear is that it is based on election results in 2013 and 2014 under Kosovo law not Serbia law and is not associated in any way with the government of Serbia. Qwerty786 ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A simple Yes/No is all that is needed. I don't want to see long paragraphs of railing against each other/copy-pastes. As a reminder, the subject area is under discretionary sanctions ( WP:ARBMAC), so I'm only going to say this once... Adhere to the letter and spirit of all Wiki Policies/Guidelines/Best Practices unless you want a ArbEnforcement action decide the dispute for you'. Hasteur ( talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and no. My viewpoint is that most of the content in that difference should remain in the article, and that the numbers of 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (in the Serbian sense of municipalities, which is second-degree local administration, under districts, and could even mean single towns or villages - the Kosovo Albanian municipalities are first-degree local administration and different) are undisputed for the previous assembly. For the new one, these numbers could be WP:Crystal, until we actually find a source.

However, I see the same issues here and here, while also I have to note that our dispute is also over this: [1], which I claim should be excluded/replaced, because it is not found in the source used. Strictly speaking, from the Agreement, the new Community "will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning", and it is not specified what this means. Implicitly I would agree it probably means no legislative power and very reduced executive one and only on those issues. Judicial power the Serbian Community never had, just the justice system was under the Serbian justice system and now it will be integrated in the Kosovo one. However, someone below invoked WP:Crystal, so who am I to define if broad overview means no legislative power? What should be written is what is in the agreement, then, art. 4: "In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning." Heracletus ( talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also a volunteer at DRN. I see that prior to the Brussels agreement that this article was entitled Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija and is now entitled Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities. I have a couple questuions"

First a yes/no question: Would having two separate articles, one historical about the 2008 based Assembly, and one about the new Assembly, be acceptable? -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would delay in editing, for say eight months until the new Assembly is up and running with available reliable sources help resolve this dispute?-- Bejnar ( talk) 21:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not create an article about "Assembly of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo" just because of this reason! I did not know about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but because there were no concrete sources I did not create a new article. The Brussels agreement is very clear in making Kosovo the only law of Kosovo and because the 2008 elections were under Belgrade law and never recognized by Kosovo or EULEX or anyone outside Serbia it made sense that the Assembly of the Serbian Municiaplities of Kosovo and Metohija were abolished just like the Serbian police and judiciary which also operated under Serbia law. Qwerty786 ( talk) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Two articles would basically mean splitting one small article into two even smaller, which would have to be interconnected and one could move to merge, if it is agreed that they are related as I suggest, and I guess another one would move to propose for deletion on the grounds of being "abolished". So, my answer would be "perhaps", as it depends on how the split articles are connected, and such a decision would also greatly affect the Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo article as well... If one could only make Wikiprojects Serbia and/or Kosovo express some opinions on these issues, we could have solved this. However, the base of the dispute is not splitting, it's removing stuff, because it was "abolished".

I wouldn't think WP:Crystal applies as there is an Agreement explicitly on both the (new) Community and its Assembly, and lots of RS articles on them. Details are under negotiation, indeed. The old community and its assembly have existed, so can't call WP:Crystal on them. Actually, the way the article was formulated, apart from the details which I mention above, such as the number of deputies and municipalities of the new Assembly, I cannot see what else you may question under WP:Crystal.

I could reformulate the passage about the number of deputies and municipalities into something like this: "The old assembly had 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (as defined by the Serbian government) and the new assembly is expected to have an unknown number of representatives from the same regions, which have a Serbian majority." Heracletus ( talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same regions. I don't know where that is coming from. Under Serbia law and elections held in 2008 the regions are not the same under Kosovo law in 2013 and 2014. The same regions do not exist according to the laws of Serbia and Kosovo and how Kosovo is broken up into municipalities. You are not right in anything you are writing when it comes to that particular aspect. The government of Kosovo and government of Serbia have divided Kosovo differently. The elections under 2008 and 2013 are totally separate and have no connection. You are using the fact that the same word "assembly" is used when that word is the only thing that connects the two. The way the two are formulated are so radically different that they really can't be seen to be connected. Serbia has completely given up on viewing Kosovo as being under the Serbian division of municipalities and have accepted the way they were divided by the Kosovo government. I must suggest the people who are trying to resolve this look at the original article as it was before all the edits. It will be obvious that the assembly proposed and the one existed have no connection other than the word assembly. Qwerty786 ( talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That is coming from the fact that Serbians exercised control in regions with Serbian majority and they held elections there. Now, again, it is envisaged that Serbian majority regions will get a municipal community out of their elections, which yes, indeed were held under Kosovo law. I won't argue over the exact regional borders, but what I write is logical. However, again, my suggestion talked about specific numbers for the 2008 thing and for more broad terms for the new thing which is under negotiation. Furthermore, as Serbia considers Kosovo to be Serbian, it of course held elections there, much like the Albanians did. Now they had an agreement and held elections under the Kosovo law in that region. These are facts, the rest is your opinion, which I am pretty much tired of countering. To base my statement of "Now they had an agreement and held elections under the Kosovo law in that region." comes article 12: "12. Municipal elections shall be organized in the northern municipalities in 2013 with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards." from the Agreement. Without it, Serbia would probably have held its own elections again in the region of Kosovo. Heracletus ( talk) 21:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the Brussels agreement again. Serbia agreed to abolish all of its institutions and have only one government in Kosovo. It agreed it would never run anything in Kosovo again. It would have been breaking the agreement to run election in Kosovo for Kosovo. Only Kosovo can do that. You are posting Brussels agreement but don't seem to know it at all. Qwerty786 ( talk) 20:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(A volunteer has removed a personal attack) I wrote: "Without it [the Brussels Agreement], Serbia would probably have held its own elections again in the region of Kosovo." and you replied as above, as if I had written that Serbia is going to hold its own elections in Kosovo soon. Heracletus ( talk) 22:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I withdraw as a volunteer in this case due to the objection of Heracletus, See Talk:Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities#Recent edits. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• You don't actually have to withdraw Bejnar if you do not wish. I believe we decided that if someone objects to a volunteer that we begin a discussion on the DRN talk page to allow others the ability to check and insure this isn't someone just trying to win a dispute by knocking out a volunteer. However, that seems like such a messy endeavor and frankly...I don't wish to put you through the crap, I myself went through several months ago when an editor decided that since they had posted on my talk page once I was too involved with them to continue and when I didn't withdraw they nominated this entire board to be deleted. Messy, messy. And I just returned after months away to give the board a break from such drama of others. But I am requesting that Hasteur please return and decide if they feel the request should remain open and continue. I also request mediation committee member Lord Roem to see if they feel this is something for formal mediation and also request two randomly selected admin, Nyttend and Shirt58 who are uninvolved to look through this case and to keep an eye open should it move forward for behavioral issues. DRN has no authority, but administrators do have tools they can use to intervene should they feel it needed. This case has not gotten out of control yet...but seems close. Thank you.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 07:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller You really shouldn't have made appeals to other DR venues until this is closed. I firmly ask the sollicited outsiders ( Lord Roem— Nyttend— Shirt58) to please respect DRN and not muddle with this issue until this request is resolved. I am reviewing the additions since Bejnar took over the case, but we've been here far too long already, with great scholarly dissertations written about the subject. I want to see the 2 primary disputants add replies no more than 300 bytes at a time to explicitly curtail long winded repostings. Hasteur ( talk) 12:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixing ping to outsiders ( Lord Roem— Nyttend— Shirt58) Hasteur ( talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors are not venues. I stand by everything I posted last night. I clearly did not ask anyone to step in but you, Hasteur, but I did ask for more eyes on this dispute and I feel you calling others outsiders, when anyone may help here is not called for, nor helping. Not one editor/admin I requested here is involved with myself on other articles or pages and we are not friends and I attempted random selections of others i am not involved with. But you seem to have control of everything so I will now leave this to you.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Heracletus I'm going to say this once: Postings where it is clear that you are assuming bad faith on the actions of other editors is in itself a failure to follow one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. The next time you post something like those where you objected to Benjar's further involvement I will summarily close this DRN thread with the recommendation that this entire conflict is a conduct dispute and that you be issued a formal permanant warning from an administrator for the Balkans Discretionary Sanctions regime. Hasteur ( talk) 12:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but did you even read what you wrote or where you linked? You wrote that I assumed bad faith of someone, and linked on the section which talks about avoiding to accuse someone of (assuming) bad faith. In fact, perhaps, you should read what it says there, as you accused me of bad faith. I made a point of Benjar having a clear position on the issue at hand before taking up the relevant case. I did so, as he had made this clear position public himself/herself, noting there that this could disqualify him/her from acting as a volunteer in this case, and also providing arguments for his position. I discredited these arguments, by providing relevant counter-arguments and noted that he/she should have notified us of having this position. This is not assuming bad faith, this is responding to facts. This is noted in the talk page where this thing happened.

This also has nothing to do with the content of the article. It has to do with the conduct of the volunteer, who failed to disclose he/she already had a clear opinion on the issue, when taking up this case. Then when this was noticed, he/she withdrew themselves from this case, while noting this on Mark Miller's talk page. Mark Miller went on the same article talk page to argue for the volunteer... I think this is acting as someone's solicitor. I didn't even ask Benjar to withdraw, I noted that he had written his opinion, he had argued about it, he had written this may not allow him/her to act as a volunteer in this case and then just proceeded to take up the case, without even disclosing that he had provided an opinion already. This has nothing to do with Kosovo, the Balkans, or any article. It's not optimal conduct and he withdrew. Then, there were personal accusations by Mark Miller and now by you that I somehow intimidated the volunteer, while I only commented on his opinion for the dispute and his impartiality due to this opinion.

As written on that talk page, if I argue publicly that the sun is, for example, yellow, and there's a dispute over the sun being white or yellow, I cannot, or at least should not, serve as a volunteer in the relevant dispute resolution, especially without disclosing my earlier stated opinion. I think the issue with Benjar ended after I explained why I would object after he withdrew because of the issues I already mentioned. The rest is personal accusations against me.

Apart from WP:Boomerang, how can you be considered impartial now since you have accused me of assuming bad faith and keep threatening us with a report to the Arbitration Committee? Obviously, if I think the volunteer has an opinion before taking up the case, I am entitled to express this. In this case, the volunteer had explicitly stated this opinion and presented arguments for it. Therefore, threatening me with reporting me to the Arbitration Committee over the issue of articles about the Balkans, because I noticed this explicitly stated opinion of the volunteer and wrote about it and its arguments and the volunteer then chose to withdraw himself/herself from the case, can be considered quite bad conduct. Heracletus ( talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Erpert ( talk · contribs)
• Richhoncho ( talk · contribs)
• Lil-unique1 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One user thinks in articles about songs, the article in question should be listed in both the SONGS and SINGLES categories. Two other users disagree with this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was going to start a thread on Richhoncho's talk page about, but upon realizing Lil-unique1 already did that, I just added to that discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I think we can try to find a consensus on whether both categories need to be listed after all in all cases (personally, I only list both categories when the song was recorded and then released in different years). In addition, Richhoncho's definition of "single" appears to be original research (it isn't defined as such in the Single (music) article).

Summary of dispute by Richhoncho

There are only three key points here:-

1. Epert objects to me applying the guideline WP:SONG#Categories and has been removing categories contra to that guideline and therefore against community wishes.
2. There has been a long conversation on my talkpage where I have pointed out to Erpert if he wants to change the guideline, then he should take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. and not on my talkpage as I can only give my opinion - obviously I do not own the guideline (even though I thoroughly approve of it).
3. Therefore dispute resolution was not the place to come but to WP:SONGS as already suggested and ignored by Erpert.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lil-unique1

Richhoncho undid my edits when I removed the song category from articles that were about singles. Personally, I feel like there isn't a definitive guideline and there's some half-baked discussions about the whole thing. I think I under Rich's point of view but it based on his own original research about the definition of a single is. Something which editors of music articles cannot agree on themselves. Its an issue that goes beyond the problem of categories to be honest. I respect Rich's edits but I think he's wrong to assume that he has a consensus for his point of view and I think its a bigger problem than this small dispute. IMO the infobox single and infobox song merged with different types e.g. "single", "promotional song" and "song". I really think its pointless classifying something as both a single and song when it cannot be a single without being song. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll add that I said to Rich that I didn't want to push the issue because I felt like he didn't understand my POV and it was discussion that was way beyond either of us, that needed more editors to get involved and some kind of technical opinion tbh. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) discussion

SN: Rich keeps mentioning WP:SONG when I think he really means to mention WP:NSONG (WP:SONG is a WikiProject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No I emphatically mean WP:SONG. However, if you read WP:NSONG it starts "Songs and singles are..." which is the crux of my argument - they are not the same thing. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As suggested above in the template. I have re-opened a new discussion on my talkpage regarding this matter. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need the same discussion going on in several different forums. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, it would probably be best if you didn't continue adding the categories in question while the dispute discussion is still active. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Which part of "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." don't you understand? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ive said everything ive wanted to say and my two pennies at Rich's talk page. I dont have anything else to say and I dont want to be part of this DRN anymore. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello! I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. My apologies that it's taken so long to open this case. Lil-unique1 has indicated a desire to stop discussing this matter here. Given this, what are the other parties' stances on continuing discussion? — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theodore!, your help is most welcome. At this moment I do not think I can add anything over and above my short summary above, there are two long conversations on my talkpage which go into depth and should bring into focus what the dispute is and why. There is a shorter discussion on Erpert's page which I find illuminating. The next step must be for Erpert to respond here. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. In this case, I will close this discussion thread. If you and the other parties fail to reach a resolution at Erpert's talk page, you are welcome to return at a future date. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 03:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theodore!, there was/is no ongoing discussion with Erpect except, possibly, here. Because I want closure on this, I have left a polite note on Erpect's talkpage asking him to comment here as he opened the DRN and I really don't want to continue avoiding categorizing articles because he is claiming ownership, as I am having to do at present. So I would ask you to give Erpect a reasonable time to respond just to close the matter out and not have to bring it back here because somebody "forgot" to comment. Again, thanks for your help. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming ownership"? Sorry, I don't do that. Anyway, no one disputed that songs and singles are different, but the way you distinguish between the two seems to be just that: how you distinguish them, not necessary decided by any consensus (you keep stating there's a consensus but you never actually point to one; a diff would help...BTW, why do you spell my name differently every time?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for getting your name wrong. Purely accidental and no other reason. I have repeatedly pointed to the consensus, but you refuse to accept it. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you still interested in continuing this discussion? Although it's up to you, I think participating in this process could help to resolve your dispute. If you would like to continue discussion, I will add a few more questions/comments in a little bit. If not, please let me know and I will close the thread; again, I think there is a good chance that we can work things out in this forum. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Be good to close this discussion once and for all, but I guess it's Erpert's choice. My view remains the same, as the dispute is over a guideline, the discussion should have been opened there and discussed among those with a vested interest and understanding of the guideline and I did suggest this course of action to Erpert several times. If the guideline had been changed in accordance with Erpert's ideas, then I would followed the amended guideline.

The only thing I can add is that about half of all new articles now come with the same categorization that Erpert objects to, and that is by many different editors. So guideline and practice are converging as much as they are likely to at Wikipedia. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 07:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Angela Merkel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs)
• IIIraute ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help users involved work out the relevant issues, and come to a compromise solution. What makes the dispute difficult is that an inclusion of an image is essentially an "either/or" kind of situation which makes arriving at compromise difficult. You can't "include two-thirds" of the image nor can we alter the image in some way to satisfy everybody.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Summary of dispute by IIIraute

Angela Merkel discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

PROCEDURAL QUESTION: Can an IP editor, with an address from which no edits to Wikipedia have ever previously come, validly claim to have discussed this on a Talk page. There is no way other editors can check this, nor see what comments this editor has already made. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On the water fluoridation controversy i was all the IP starting with 109 and 79 (my internet provider has a dynamic IP) Actually I'm the only IP editor concerning the "Additions" sections.

The last line of the section "Note to Israeli IP 79.* and 109.*" i wrote "Small note :I have registered to wikipedia (the original IP editor), with the following signed nick. User:LarryTheShark"

Then i started discussion in the water fluoridation article under that username. Unfortunately my registered user account was blocked during the talk page discussions, in what seemed to have a very strong censorship flavor to it. (same ip editor) 79.182.151.40 ( talk) 08:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you are editing here as a blocked user. I see no point in discussing this any further. It's up to an Admin to action this now. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was forbidden (hence my willingness of full disclosure). I have just requested an unblock on the registered account. I ask the supervising admin here, to please wait for a short while, to see if this block is lifted, so i can continue this important DRN. thank you (same ip editor) 109.65.115.20 ( talk) 09:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ADMIN NOTE. I have declined LarryTheShark's unblock request. Larry, please read my reasoning on your page. You'll have to continue this DRN if and when you succeed in getting unblocked in the future (I've suggested waiting at least three months before you try again), or rather, you'll have to open a new DRN, because this one should be closed now. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Location of dispute

• Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yobol ( talk · contribs)
• Guy ( talk · contribs)
• LeadSongDog ( talk · contribs)
• Zad68 ( talk · contribs)
• Doc James ( talk · contribs)
• Daffydavid ( talk · contribs)
• HiLo48 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The scope of the dispute also concerns Water fluoridation controversy article. The core of the dispute I believe revolves around WP:WORLDVIEW. There is a systematic bias in those two articles towards the pro water fluoridation view of the heavily water fluoridated nations; USA and Australia, to the point that it looks like an advocacy advertisement. ( WP:PROMOTION) Any information that sheds negative light or doubt on the practice is immediately reverted. And thus WP:Undue is being misused as an excuse to censor mainstream information that doesn't conform to these two countries perception of public water fluoridation. In the water fluoridation article, multiple scientific references contradicting facts in article are shunned. The European Union official position on public water fluoridation is ignored. etc. In the Controversy article, it is impossible to even mention the most notable group against water fluoridation, even a current health minister in a western country that recently decided to end fluoridation is shunned. Just to put things in perspective - the vast majority of the world does not practice water fluoridation including 95% of Europe. some countries that had water fluoridation ended it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i had an RfC on the water fluoridation controversy talk page

How do you think we can help?

The additions made on the water fluoridation article by me are legit and important and give the full view of water fluoridation practice in the scientific literature https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=602718307&oldid=602716678

Two additions I made in the Water fluoridation controversy strikingly conform to WP:RS and WP:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=602449209&oldid=602446383

Summary of dispute by Yobol

Summary of dispute by JzG

Mediation should be rejected per WP:FORUMSHOP.

An anonymous editor wants to add a political act in order to imply a scientific conclusion. The problem has been patiently explained, but he does not like the answer - at least, not as long as it remains "no". They have tried several ways to insert this, and consistently failed to achieve consensus.

The claim that the water fluoridation article is advocating fluoridation, is specious. The scientific consensus is that fluoridation is safe and effective. There have always been those who rail against " polluting our precious bodily fluids (see especially List of conspiracy theories#Water fluoridation) and we have an entire article on the fluoridation "controversy" (it is politically, not scientifically, controversial).

There will always be a steady stream of editors who want our content on water fluoridation to more closely reflect a conspiracist and scientifically untenable world-view. There will always be, as we see here, a decent number of Wikipedians who will explain to them why that will not happen.

The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy.

As the IP acknowledges, he has been beating this drum for a long time. Guy ( Help!) 09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LeadSongDog

Summary of dispute by Zad68

Summary of dispute by Doc James

Summary of dispute by Daffydavid

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

water fluoridation discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Right Sector ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet ( talk · contribs)
• Dervorguilla ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Right Sector is an ultranationalist and paramilitary political group that formed as a union of smaller far-right groups in Ukraine at the end of 2013. Its ideology, members or constituent groups have been described by some media and scholars as neo-fascist, an appellation not used by others, and contested by a few. The group traces its origins to the far-right Ukrainian nationalists who view themselves as inheritors of the controversial figure Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as opposed to other, more moderate Ukrainian nationalist parties.

I've presented newspaper articles (from Die Welt, The New York Times, The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, Haaretz, Time (magazine)) and scholarly opinions explaining their far-right politics, but Dervorguilla maintains that the sources I present are either mischaracterized, not reliable, not notable, or otherwise a violation of WP:DUE. I contest his characterization of each source and believe that the article is beginning to look like a self-description by Right Sector.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this extensively on Talk:Right Sector, on our own talk pages, and have tried an RfC, which gave mixed results but towards the end favored exclusion of the material. We've also talked about a dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I think having a neutral, experienced editor to work with us to establish: 1) what the sources actually say, 2) how notable or reliable they are, and lastly 3) what their weight should be would be greatly appreciated. I think this is possible because we've both been cordial.

Summary of dispute by Dervorguilla

1. Let’s begin with the topmost material added by Darouet: “Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.”

The cited unsigned background analysis has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database. The newspaper does however quote a “well-known Ukrainian researcher” as calling the subject an organization of little “right-wing” groups and gangs. It calls the subject itself a “right-wing” group, a “nationalist” group, and an “ultranationalist” group. See Talk:Right Sector for a lengthier discussion.

2. Darouet started an RfC asking “Do major papers describe Right Sector as neo-Fascist?”. Collect responded “Some do and others don't. So what the Wikipedia best practice is - is to use that term or terms which cover the broad consensus of sources which would appear to be "Right Wing Nationalist".” A few days later Darouet added, in about 3½ hours, all this material:

Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.… Journalist Alec Luhn for The Nation wrote that "ultranationalists and neo-Nazis" from Right Sector and other groups took control…. Ishchenko wrote that "previously marginal neofascists from the militant Pravy Sektor" entered into negotiations…. Le Monde Diplomatique's Emmanuel Dreyfus writes that the presence of "neo-fascist groups such as Pravy Sector" in Maidan point to a crisis…. Haaretz has written that members of Right Sector used neo-Nazi symbols…. According to TIME magazine, Right Sector's ideology borders on fascism…. Columnist Conn Hallinan has written that the United States press has "downplayed the role" of Right Sector and other far-right groups, which some media and scholars label as "fascist."… Political Scientist Cas Mudde writes that Right Sector's constituent groups include "various neo-fascists and neo-Nazis" who formed alliances…. Political science professor Alexander Motyl by contrast writes that Right Sector is … not fascist.… Political Scientist Anton Shekhovstov writes that while "Right Sector has indeed a neo-Nazi fringe … the main group behind the Right Sector … is far from neo-Nazism…."

Lvivske or I had already presented our concerns about these items at Talk.

3. I believe Lvivske ( talk) should be included in this discussion. Meanwhile some of the material added by Darouet can be removed without harm to the article.

___

Supp. A
Addressing Darouet’s comments that he’s ‘presented sources explaining the subject’s far-right politics’ and that I’ve ‘maintained they’re violations of WP:DUE’ —
I’ve been supporting his point that the subject has far-right politics. And I’ve never maintained (or implied) that the sources are violations of WP:DUE. Rather, I’ve maintained that particular sources are violations of PUBLICFIGURE, NEWSBLOG, RSOPINION, or REDFLAG.
00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector discussion

• I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I'd be happy to assist in discussing this issue, but will wait until Dervorguilla responds before adding further comments. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've contacted User:Lvivske regarding this discussion. To start out with, I have one quick question for both editors: Under what circumstances would you be comfortable with references to fascism existing in this article? Any answer is fine; I just want to clarify what you're each looking to see in the article. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Theodore!; I don't see any problem with User:Lvivske participating. I think that we should include references to fascism as direct quotes or as paraphrasing from sources in the "history" section, where Right Sector's constituent groups are discussed, and in "ideology". I think that Right Sector's description as a neo-fascist organization (or the description of its ideology) should also be noted in the lead, with a qualification that some researchers, e.g. Shekhovstov, think that while some contributing groups as neo-fascist, the group as a whole is not. - Darouet ( talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response! I'll ask a couple other questions and offer some ideas once Dervorguilla and Lvivske reply. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Is there still a need for further discussion on this subject? If so, I am wondering whether we can agree to discuss the "fascism" allegations in the article, while indicating that these are allegations? E.g., we could say that (Insert source) has correlated the ideology of Right Sector to that of fascist groups, but this claim has been denied by (Insert other source). Or, alternatively, we could just say "(Right Sector has frequently been identified as neo-fascist/ultranationalist/etcetera", followed by as many sources as possible. What do you think? — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and I appear to be making progress on our own now, Theodore! Thanks for your help. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are still problems, but I need another day or two before I can get back to this, sorry! - Darouet ( talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Let's revisit this in 72 hours; if you've made sufficient progress by then, I'll close the discussion. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, it would be helpful if you would explain these recent changes to the article here. - Darouet ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that′s wrong? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Following your changes, the article went from having an ordered structure describing its formation, activities in Maidan, and then ideology, to now having a long incoherent ideology section with every statement from every source listed independently, without any flow of ideas, logic or history. - Darouet ( talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes, trying to consolidate similar views, or describe related discussions, including for instance disagreement among academics/researchers, within the same paragraphs. Let me know what you think. - Darouet ( talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I can restore and reorganize the content in the "Ideology: Descriptions in the press" section so it’s shorter and more coherent. And we can get some other editors to contribute too.

We might as well limit the citations in the lead to what Wikipedia regards as the few truly mainstream news media (MSM).

“ Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels…. Media organizations such as CBS and the New York Times set the tone for other smaller news organizations … lacking the resources to do more individual research and coverage, [the] primary method being through the Associated Press….”

-- Dervorguilla ( talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how we should proceed on this Dervorguilla, Theodore!. Should we try to establish a framework within which we can accept sources that are mainstream, reliable enough for the lead? - Darouet ( talk) 01:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think the "mainstream media" idea isn't bad, but we have to look at quality over quantity of viewers/readers. Some news outlets will provide high-quality, WP:RS, WP:V information on events, but might not have the same circulation as CBS or the NYT. We should probably try to balance out information in the lead so that it reflects consistencies between multiple, "mainstream" sources. I'll offer a few more ideas on how to do this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first, if you have some specific suggestions. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Darouet's idea as given. Why make it harder to reach agreement on appropriate sources? To my knowledge, neither of us would actually treat CBS as a top-quality source. Nor would either of us suggest that BBC, Time, WSJ, NYTimes, Reuters, AP, AFP, or Der Spiegel aren't top-quality sources as well as top-quantity.

Thanks to Darouet's contributions the article as a whole no longer appears to be tilted in favor of the subject group. But several passages appear to be (jarringly) tilted one way or the other. We should attack those vigorously, but let's try do it address those conservatively and piece by piece! -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

About the BBC interview I removed... I don’t regard anonymous “man on the street” interviews as being particularly encyclopedic, no matter how reliable the publisher. In this case the interviewee may well have been using loaded terminology like “clean” for shock value. The casual reader is more likely to interpret the quote as representing an incriminating admission against interest, wouldn’t you agree? It might be appropriate in a section on Right Sector’s (1) use of attention-seeking rhetoric and garb to garner publicity (and recruit more fight-ready soccer hooligans to its cause) and (2) use of grandstanding self-promotional projects (as in Odessa) to garner more publicity by appearing dramatically out of character.

It’s a marvelous quote, though, and I support your having added it to the article, as I presume you were counting on me to edit it if I perceived a problem.

If you have time, maybe you could search the scholarly literature for incriminating admissions by the various groups’ leadership or their designated representatives. Such quotations (or paraphrases) would be far more encyclopedic and useful to our readers!

In such cases the sources would most likely be low-circulation high-quality *academic* journals or books.

Before adding such material to the article, we could let each other *verify* the quality of the publication, the special expertise of the author, and the representativeness of the quoted passage.

Moving on, I’m willing to live with the article-body text as it stands now. Should either of us want to make significant additions or deletions (including paragraph reorganization), we could propose them here and then edit together before altering the text.

I also propose that we spend more time on noncontentious cleanup. I'm going to start by fixing the BBC cite. (The link doesn’t work.) I see Yobot got to it first! Yobot got it wrong... Fixed it myself.

Peace, Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with this; it's very well-written and provides a fair categorization of Right Sector's politics. I'm interested to see Darouet's response, but this sounds good so far. — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov is a (1) pre-eminent scholar, (2) a student, and (3) a self-professed conspiracy theorist. The (very interesting) material cited to him is going to have to be expeditiously removed from this contentious BLPGROUP. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for your help. Dervorguilla, I would support text similar to the one you mentioned. While both Right Sector itself, and also its constituent groups, have been described as "fascist," I don't think that both of these things need to be mentioned in the lead because belaboring such a point will leave the lead unbalanced. Therefore I'd support this option:

"Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultra-nationalist." It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

Right Sector views itself within the tradition of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and their controversial leader, Stepan Bandera. The ideology of Its leading constituent group, Trident, has been described as national conservative. Other founding groups included the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; some of these are described as having ultranationalist or neo-fascist beliefs.

etc."

I wouldn't support the AP statement in the lead unless we're sure that the statement is actually representative of coverage by major papers. For instance, Haaretz has described the organization as likely handing out anti-semitic literature at events.

Lastly, where are we getting this information about Shekhovstov being a "self-professed conspiracy theorist?" I couldn't find any information in the (unreliable) links provided, and the information about Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly was published in an academic book (besides the fact that its tacitly backed up by The New York Times and Die Welt, though they aren't as authoritative sources, despite their quality). - Darouet ( talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Velychenko, “The EU as Ukraine’s Lesser Evil,” Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research, March 10, 2014.

“During the past months pro-Kremlin opinion concerning events in Ukraine has been espoused by supposedly “liberal” academics …

“Some of these de facto politically pro-Kremlin leftists must be considered dishonest because they do not openly declare they are funded by the Kremlin. Anton Shekhovtsov is currently studying these groups ( … anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ca).

“This information product is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development.”

You have explained how I’m seeking to curry favor with “liberal readers,” Darouet. I accordingly believe that there will be no need for us to make any further unsolicited remarks to or about each other on Article History, Talk, User Talk, Talk History, or elsewhere, in perpetuity. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for your participation during the last few days. I think that both Darouet's and Dervorguilla's proposed leads are excellent; if we decide to go with Darouet's phrasing, I would imagine that the final comment about neo-fascism will need to be extensively sourced. Additionally, let's be careful about flinging around accusations about political ideologies; these are contentious topics, to be sure, but we can work around ideological differences when resolving this dispute. At this point, I would be cautious about Anton Shekhovtsov, but I am not sure it's a good idea to expunge his material from the article. If his commentary has been prominent in recent months, it may well meet the definition of a reliable source. At any rate, any article content based on his writings could be explicitly attributed to him. What do you think? — Theodore! ( talk) ( contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure of interests
Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family has a significant financial interest in any product, service, or entity discussed in her edits or in any competing product, service, or entity. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi All, sorry for my slowness here. I do have a series of academic articles or book chapters, by Shekhovstov and others, that treat Ukrainian far-right nationalism. I'll see if others mention these groups. - Darouet ( talk) 03:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Autism Research Institute ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nchs 89 ( talk · contribs)
• Alinoé ( talk · contribs)
• MrBill3 ( talk · contribs)
• Bhny ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Updates by unbiased third parties are not being permitted. Legitimate research organization is being slandered by editors with an agenda. They have no current citations that link their assertions to evidence, but they delete and override legitimate updates, tagging the page as an "advertisement" and writing statements about what the organizations "subscribes" to and "believes" without citations that quote the organization. A past president of the org - Bernie Rimland (d. 2006) did explore vaccine causation and chelation theories surrounding Autism treatment but he is long-deceased - current leadership has explained its commitment to following research wherever it leads. This page could have a "past history" section that explores the history of it's founder, but it links to the founder's wiki page. Perhaps repeating that information on the organization site is redundant. Other organizations have reformed with new information - can a shift in opinion in light of new facts be facilitated on Wikipedia?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It appears several well-meaning editors attempted to update with facts after a COI occurred in March. Unfortunately, the COI appears to have created animosity. Perhaps everyone needs to hit the 'reset' button and update the page objectively.

How do you think we can help?

Assertions need proper attribution. If editors assert an organization espouses a philosophy - particularly a controversial or risky one - they need to include links that prove the individual or organization said so. As written, this entry attributes a number of "beliefs" to this group without linking to documents that show the leadership of the organization subscribes to them. If links documenting the past leadership's perspective are to be included that would be appropriate "history"

Summary of dispute by Alinoé

Summary of dispute by MrBill3

Summary of dispute by Bhny

The article had been fairly stable until this edit-[ [2]] where an employee of Autism Research Institute started removing criticism and making the article mirror the company's website. I pointed out the COI problem and the editor eventually ceased editing, only to be replaced by a few more single purpose accounts. Bhny ( talk) 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

slanderous statements discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Template:Islam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peaceworld111 ( talk · contribs)
• Wiki id2 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Wiki id2 considers that the Ahmadiyya sect should be regarded as a non-Muslim religion/sect and therefore be removed from the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim sect world over except a few countries such as Pakistan where the Ahmadis by law are not permitted to call themselves Muslims. Essentially, Wiki id2 considers that a country and its "scholars" have some copyright over the religion of Islam and that for some reason (that I struggle to understand) their view somehow over-rides the view of the rest of the world.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tons of discussion. This discussion has cropped many different times over different pages and has been resolved various times. See for example Talk:Ahmadiyya.

How do you think we can help?

I don't think that there is much dispute in this per WP:Self-identification. The Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. User Wiki id2 thinks that self-identification is a weak case.

Summary of dispute by Wiki id2

PeaceWorld111 considers the Ahmadi sect/religon to be a part of islam and therefore remain in the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim by Ahmadis. But there recognition is disputed by countries such as Pakistan (where they face discrimination) butalso countries where they do not have established population centres such as Saudi Arabia (centre of Sunni Islam) and UAE, Qatar, Egypt. While in other western countries such as UK and canada they are regarded as Muslims.

Template:Islam discussion

Hi. I am a DRN volunteer and I'd like to open discussion with a couple of questions, so that we can see what we do have agreement on. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having an Islam template?

The same purpose as of any other religion based template, such as Template:Christianity. --Peace world 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please state the purpose. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to say here except that it should give a really brief overview of Islam. --Peace world 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In terms of including or excluding Ahmadiyya from the template, what is the most important Wikipedia policy?

• WP:Self-identification is pretty clear. The Ahmadis identify themselves as Muslims and thus should be regarded as such by Wikipedia. The same is the case with Mormonism and various other denominations in a variety of faiths.
• The Ahmadis are discriminated against by the government in Pakistan (e.g. if Ahmadis are subject to 3 years imprisonment if they call themselves Muslim), Saudi Arabia (e.g. Ahmadis are deported for being Ahmadis), UAE (e.g. the Ahmadiyya central site alislam.org is banned) and Egypt and hence the opinions of such countries cannot be considered as WP:NPOV. In fact reputable sources such as Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam 1, or 2 or 3 or 4 or any news article which mentions Ahmadiyya, whether it be NY Times, LA Times, BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post or any other mainstream media, you will find that they are always discussed in the context of a Muslim sect. I have previously requested Wiki id2 to find half a dozen reputable sources, free from state intervention (which excludes Pakistani media, as calling Ahmadis Muslims will be breaking the law of the land), which discusses Ahmadis in the context of a separate religion, but he has not been able to provide any.
• WP:ASSERT is pretty clear that we should "avoid stating opinions as facts". --Peace world 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• WP:THIRDPARTY is a useful one here. It is clear, by bullet point 2 above, that Pakistan is in no position to undertake an independent review of the case whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not. --Peace world 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are some or all of the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya derived from Islam?

Totally all. The Ahmadis believe in all the fundamentals of Islam, namely the Islam#Articles of faith and Islam#Five pillars. The article Ahmadiyya is pretty clear on the issue: "Ahmadi thought emphasizes the belief that Islam is the final dispensation for humanity as revealed to Muhammad and the necessity of restoring to it its true essence and pristine form, which had been lost through the centuries. Thus, Ahmadis view themselves as leading the revival and peaceful propagation of Islam." I don't any further explanation is required. However, just for the sake of it, let me explain the difference. The Ahmadis believe that the Islamic prophecy concerning the coming of the Mahdi and Jesus have been fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whereas the Sunnis are waiting the return of the Mahdi and Jesus. If there are any other differences they are too minor to mention and therefore not so relevant. However, the one thing that Wiki id2 will probably mention is that Ahmadis do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet. However, this is debatable because the Sunnis do believe that Jesus, regarded a prophet by the Muslims is yet to descend after more than 1400 years of death of Muhammad. --Peace world 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If the Ahmadiyya are heretical, are there other heretical sects of Islam?

I do not think Ahmadis are heretics. I think they are good people. They are religious folks. But I believe that self-identification is not a rational enough reason to declare someone a Muslim. It has to be supported by objective and rational facts. The Ahmadi reject the traditional notion of the Seal of the prophets and their "interpretation" - which I consider to actually be a seperate religious viewpoint - worth respect. Because, aside from the Ahmadi sect, no other major sect, fiqh or school of thought in Islam has said that the Ahmadi "interpretation" is actually backed up by Islamic theology, eschatology or a valid (beyond reasonable doubt) Quranic exegesis or the appropriate scholarly consensus - which acknowledges minority interpretations, except in the case of Ahmadis. Some other users remain unnamed, have unfortunately accused me of bigotry. I comprehend their concerns given that they passionately and religously consider Ahmadis a part of Islam. However, I think it is unfair to accuse me of hatred as I have clearly shown respect to them as human beings - but disagree, as do the overwhelming (all but Ahmadis ie. 99.9995%) of Muslims not due to blind faith but do you the appropriate clear scholarly consensus throughout Islamic thought, theology, literature and Quranic exegesis along with Hadithic exegesis that Ahmadis might have religious beliefs derived from traditional Islamic thought - but that they constitute a seperate religon. Just like Islam has derived principles from christianity and judaism. It is not considered a sect of Judaism or reformed christianity. Even though it believes in Jesus. But because it rejects Jesus' resurrection and being the son of God, it disagrees on fundamental Christian theological and Biblical tradition, henceforth is regarded as a seperate religion. Peace world.( Wiki id2 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

It will be difficult to find any reputable source which describes Ahmadis as heretical. What is true, however, sources do tend to say that "Ahmadis are considered heretical" by some Muslims, which is a totally different to saying that "Ahmadis are heretical". Equally, Shias are considered heretical by some Muslim, as are most other sects. It will be incorrect to label Ahmadis as heretical per WP:No Original Research. Note, however, if Ahmadis were to be regarded as such we would have to label pretty much every other sect as heretical. --Peace world 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a response to Wiki id2, it is totally incorrect to compare Ahmadis-Sunni/Shia relationship with that of Islam-Christianity. In terms of the fundamental beliefs, the Ahmadis totally agree with the rest of the Muslims, namely, the Articles of Faith and Five Pillars of Islam, as I stated earlier. There is no comparable similarity with Christianity and Islam. Trinity, is probably what defines Christianity. Do the Muslims too believe in Trinity? What's more, the Holy Books of the Christians and Muslims are the Gospels and the Quran respectively. Do the Ahmadis have a different Holy Book? NO. It is the Quran. The modes of worship are totally different between Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, it will be impossible to tell the difference between the prayer of Ahmadis and the rest of the Muslims.

No one is claiming that you have shown hatred. Again, you have portrayed the image that Muslims universally consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. That is totally incorrect. Something which I did tell you earlier is that according to a survey conducted by Pew itself, on page 93, it states that 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia, 12% Indonesia, 7% Pakistan. Bare in mind, however, these countries are among the countries that most fiercely oppose Ahmadiyya in terms of human rights. There are specific cases where countries and Muslims recognize the Ahmadiyya sect. The National Peace council of Ghana consists of 13 members representing the various religious, social and academic structures of the country. Of those 13, 3 are Muslims, 1 Ahmadi (representing the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement, since Ahmadis represent a large minority and 2 others representing the rest of the Muslims). Note the word Muslim. Another example: The Dutch Muslims recognize Ahmadiyya as Muslims.

Note also that we cannot use the theological based argument, that since there is a "scholarly" consensus that Ahmadis are non-Muslims, they should be recognized as such. First of all it totally incorrect to say that there is such a scholarly consensus. scholars are not just non-Ahmadi Muslims. There are Ahmadi and non-Muslim scholars too. And secondly, if we were to use the theological based argument, we would have to declare religions such as Judaism, Sikhism as infidels, as there is a consensus among Muslims regarding it too. --Peace world 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my last point is clear enough: My point was that if Catholics began to define the faith of Eastern Orhodox church, the Protestants of Mormons, the Sunnis of Shias and Ahmadis, the Orthodox Jews of the Reformed Ones, Hindus of Sikhs and Jains, Shias of Bahais, Buddhists of Tibeten Buddhism we would have a total collapse of the Religious and Philosophy section of Wikipedia.

To further support my points above, however, let me give further examples: Why does Obama refer to Ahmadis as Ahmadiyya Muslims, Why does the Candian PM refer to Ahmadis as Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, why is there a Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus in the United States, why is there a Ahmadiyya Muslim Parliamentary group in the UK, why is it in Germany For the first time in Germany, a Muslim community has been granted 'corporation under public law' status. --Peace world 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that the DRN volunteer is not neutral with respect to this issue?

I, Bejnar, have not edited the Islam template nor the Ahmadiyya article, nor previously participated in this discussion. I have edited and created other articles dealing with Islam, but to the best of my knowledge and memory none of the edits were related to the Ahmadiyya. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to accuse a DRN volunteer of being non-neutral just because you don't like the way the discussion is going. If you have valid reasons then state them and ask the volunteer to recuse. He/she will then step aside and allow another volunteer to take the case, although in my experience what happens is that a new volunteer doesn't arrive and the case just stalls and is closed. Your choice. But don't make allegations unless you have good objective reasons and can state them clearly. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, Peaceworld111 you need to dial it back and allow the moderator to lead the discussion. It's not appropriate for you to be making new section headings and dominating the page. This page is for moderated discussion. So please allow the moderator to do their job and allow time for other involved users to respond to one of your comments before making new statements. Thank you. Bejnar please carry on. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Keithbob, I think you are mistaken. The section headings were created by the volunteer, and all I did was that I responded to them. User:Wiki id2 hasn't responded and that is why it looks like this way. --Peace world 18:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed create this section as part of opening discussion. Based on past experience, I wanted to disclose my past in regard to the issue, see above, and to provide a place where parties could challenge my neutrality, if so inclined, as they are entitled to do. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Peaceworld111, I jumped the gun and I owe you and apology. Bejnar, I'm glad you are here and if your unorthodox style is working, I support you! Thanks again and my apology for misinterpreting the situation. Peace out! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

General Discussion

Just to weigh in here. 1) This would seem like an easy subject to RfC. 2) Looking at RS and the preference of the group (something WP:BLPCAT lets us look at for BLP's at least) Ahmadiyya might reasonably be called a denomination of Islam. NickCT ( talk) 18:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And I think that to do anything other than call it a denomination (whatever word we use) of Islam would be a violation of WP:NPOV - which an RfC IMHO can't overrule. Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Dougweller: We could always set up an RfC to see if this really is a violation of NPOV.  :-) NickCT ( talk) 12:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@ NickCT: Actually I would have taken this straight to WP:NPOVN myself to get a wider input. Dougweller ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Dougweller: - Ah. Well regardless of what the correct strategy is, I hope User:Bejnar brings this to a quick resolution. The answer here seems self-evident. NickCT ( talk) 12:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Cher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FraDany ( talk · contribs)
• Boris Karloff II ( talk · contribs)
• Lordelliott ( talk · contribs)
• Light show ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Boris Karloff II and I proposed to replace current Cher's infobox picture with a more recent one because the current one has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment. Lordelliot and Light show disagree with this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this extensively on Talk: Cher and on edit summary.

How do you think we can help?

I think we can try to find a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Boris Karloff II

Last year, a brief discussion of the subject ( [3]) ultimately led to User:Light show placing a 1970s publicity photo (source: "Original photo from Light Show") in the lead, although far from everyone involved was completely contented. There was general consensus that we did not have a perfectly adequate picture at disposal at that moment, so the lead remained like that.

More recently, in the course of Cher's current tour, I imported a string of new photographies from Flickr, suggesting this one for the article's lead. It displays her in one of her characteristical costumes; complying with the general requirements for lead pictures. I was promptly detained from suiting the action to the word by Light show, who eagerly insists on utilizing a picture from an earlier period of her career. After briefly arguing with Light show on the talk page, User:FraDany jumped in, supporting my argument. User:Lordelliott showed his preference for the current 1970s portrait.

It must be considered that Cher had her acting breakthrough not until 1985 and her commercial peak as a musician in 1998. She is not only still active, but released her highest-charting solo album just last year and is currently touring the US; selling out arenas. Having considerably changed her public appearance multiple times throughout her career, she does not at all look like she does on the Casablanca photo anymore. In view of that, I hold that a rather recent picture is most adequate for the discussed article's lead. Besides the afore-mentioned tour photo, I suggested this image, too; although I would rather favor the first one. -- Boris Karloff II. ( talk) 08:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lordelliot

Quoting Light show from this discussion: "This is supposed to be a full biography of a singer and actress, covering a 50-year period, not an article focused on recent newsworthy appearances with candid images more suitable for today's tabloids, where papparazzi swarm and click away. A photo representing the biography and more closely relevant to her notability would be one like File:Cher - Casablanca.jpg, which shows her as she appeared during a key period in career [...] Hence, the rationale given by an editor, more current photo generally preferred to antediluvian image, is wrong on all counts: It is not generally preferred, except for news stories, not a biography. This is especially true of people in the entertainment field." Lordelliott ( talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Light show

There's not much I'll add from my comments on the talk page. But I'll simply say that that the entire issue began when Boris Karloff II decided to change the lead image with their rationale, dif: New, recent photo from her Dressed to Kill Tour, which I reverted for the reasons stated in the previous link. A few hour later, FraDany chimed in with, "the current one is ancient and has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment. . . she is on tour right now. Boris Karloff II. is right the current picture creates the impression that the person is a "has-been" or "dead". None of those arguments seem valid as explained on the talk page. -- Light show ( talk) 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cher discussion

Hello, and welcome to the DRN. My first question for participants is, how many editors are for the inclusion and how many are against the inclusion. This question regards straight up numbers and not the arguments made for or against the image. Bear with me here. This is not to count !votes just to get an understanding of the situation for a clearer picture.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As of now, it's two for keeping the existing portrait image and two for adding a recent stage image. FWIW, Lordelliott, also for keeping, has been by far the major contributor to her article, with nearly 1,200 edits. -- Light show ( talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am reviewing the dispute and the images involved and will begin a discussion shortly.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer assessment

This is a common issue. What image of the freely licensed, Wiki Commons pictures should we use? All of the images being suggested pass criteria for image use and licensing and each side has an argument they are passionate about, as many fans or admirers or even just interested editors might. This is what I know about lead images. You can put some on articles and never hear a thing, and maybe even get a thank you...and you can put some on that will absolutely not fly by those interested. Jerry Brown is one image dispute where I wanted to use something newer to replace the older portrait. The portrait remains there. That specific discussion had about as many or less editors but had a rough consensus. I can live with the older image,it isn't horrible. So, unless editors are able to live with one of the other editors "version" or you continue on the talk page with further discussion with, perhaps,an RFC to attract a larger community input. Trust me, if you put "Lead Image discussion" on the RFC title, it will probably draw some editors.

I am going to go ahead and refer editors back to the talk page with these basic suggestions. Lead images can be a very interesting, or more accurately, have a more interested group of editors on Wikipedia. Sometimes editors will create the consensus discussion and then invite editors who have participated in similar discussions on other pages. Notable artists for major comic books have a pretty sizable group of articles with editors who randomly select the last group that discussed a lead image. You have to invite every editor from the last discussion with a neutrally worded request, regardless of their !vote, it's a random selection of editors based only on a lead image discussion on another articles. But not everyone wants to go through all that trouble so, there is the RFC same thing really but you just make one post correctly formated and random editors interested will come. If the RFC fails, any editor can request DRN at that time. I will be doing a general close shortly, nut shelling the above in comment.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 11:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RedVictory356 ( talk · contribs)
• Phoenix7777 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I work for Professor James Crawford, an international lawyer. He has asked me to remove material from this page that misrepresents his views. The material is not in Professor Crawford's own words. It appears to have been translated from two second-hand accounts that only exist in Japanese (which I do not speak), so I cannot verify the cause of the inaccuracy. There is no English source. Professor Crawford is a well-known academic who publishes widely. It seems inappropriate for views to be attributed to him from a second-hand account translated from a foreign language rather than from his own publications. In any case, Professor Crawford can confirm that the material is inaccurate and wishes it removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have deleted the material a couple of times and have tried to explain myself on the Talk page (my edits were made as 131.111.156.24, but I have now registered formally as a user, RedVictory356). Another user, Phoenix7777, has reinstated the material each time and has also given reasons on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Phoenix7777 has suggested that I did not follow proper procedures and that I will be blocked if I delete the material again. I apologize if that is the case (I am not a regular Wikipedia user). I have left the material intact pending resolution of the dispute. But Professor Crawford feels strongly that this inaccurate material should be deleted. I would be grateful for any advice about the correct process or if anyone is willing to intervene to ensure the material is deleted.

Summary of dispute by Phoenix7777

We are discussing this issue by email with a Professor at Cambridge university Dr. Clawford, and a professor at Kobe University Dr. Kimura. Please wait for a consensus we may reach.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sabiha Gökçen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sekarca ( talk · contribs)
• EtienneDolet ( talk · contribs)
• MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs)
• Theobjektivist ( talk · contribs)
• Teykell ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is regarding the "Early Life" section of Sabiha Gökçen. Armenian editors are persisting on having it say that "her origins are in doubt", because an article in a nationalist Armenian newspaper that was published after her death said so. Just because there are claims made by an Armenian newspaper article shouldn't mean that Gokcen's history begins with "her origins are disputed". There are claims that the Armenian Genocide and 9/11 are false, and many publications argue so. Do the Wikipedia pages on the Armenian Genocide and 9/11 start with "the origins of 9/11 are disputed" or do they have a separate section for claims. The same should be the case on this page. Thank You.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a discussion the the talk page. In response to the academic publications posted that date to AFTER 2004 when the Armenian article was published, the Armenian response has been to post news articles about the Armenian news article and claim them as scholarly sources pertaining to Gokcen's origins. And now they want to delete the names of her biological parents, and are very rude and uncompromising when it comes to discussion. I repeat, they want to delete the names of her biological parents, the people that she clearly states as her biological parents in her autobiography, "Atatürk'le Bir Ömür"!! This is tantamount to rewriting history and deleting facts to fit your desires. Her own words are disregarded while unsubstantiated chauvinism from a single, Armenian publication that has been rejected by her family is made into fact.

How do you think we can help?

Claims should be in a separate claims section, like on the 9/11 page for example, and not involve starting her early life with "her origins are disputed". Otherwise it's just double standards.

Summary of dispute by EtienneDolet

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Theobjektivist The users above, with the exception of MarshallBagramyan and myself, are sockpuppets. I suggest closing this discussion and deferring all outstanding disputes to the talk page of the article in question. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MarshallBagramyan

Summary of dispute by Theobjektivist

Summary of dispute by Teykell

Sabiha Gökçen discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Dinosaur Train ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CharlieBrown25 ( talk · contribs)
• FilmandTVFan28 ( talk · contribs)
• Mz7 ( talk · contribs)
• Slightsmile ( talk · contribs)
• SummerPhD ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It has been a long time. I have been frequently attempting to convince several people that the character "Shiny" has romantic attraction to the character "Gilbert". There are several instances of this in the program itself, but no one agrees with me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have said that there is no other possibility other than the fact that they are romantically attracted to one another, (or at least she is attracted to him). But they still don't see my point

How do you think we can help?

Provide a reliable source to prove or disprove my point. Or make a statement yourself that proves or disproves my point.

Summary of dispute by FilmandTVfan28

I disagree with CharlieBrown. It doesn't help if he keeps adding that statement to the article without waiting patiently for an answer. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mz7

The dispute revolves around the character description for Shiny, a fictional character in the television show Dinosaur Train. CharlieBrown has repeatedly added information about a crush by Shiny on Gilbert, another Dinosaur Train character ( example diff), and FilmandTVFan has repeatedly reverted CharlieBrown ( example diff). A thread exists at the talk page for this issue: see Talk:Dinosaur Train#Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot.

My stance in all of this is that the information is a) only important to a small population of enthusiastic fans, b) CharlieBrown's original research synthesizing trivial elements of Dinosaur Train episodes, and c) not necessary to serve the purpose of the character description. CharlieBrown asks that this noticeboard provide them with a reliable source "to prove or disprove my point". Per WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Thus, DRN cannot help him on that point, and I do not think there is any action necessary at this noticeboard. As SummerPhD mentions in his opening statement: there is a consensus against including the information. Perhaps it's time to drop the stick. Mz7 ( talk) 13:23, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC), revised 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The page has just been fully protected by Ymblanter for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Mz7 ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slightsmile

I don't see why it's such a big deal who Shiny does or doesn't have a crush for. As the series progresses maybe CB can revisit that issue in a few months but for now I think it's time to drop the stick and move slowly away from the horse. Slight Smile 16:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SummerPhD

I am one of several editors who disagrees with USER:CharlieBrown25 on this. To my knowledge, no one has agreed with them. I have repeatedly asked for independent reliable sources for this supposed "crush". CharlieBrown25 has not supplied any. The WP:CONSENSUS is against including the material. I have asked for an independent reliable source, per WP:V. Failing the addition of such sources or a shift in consensus, I see no further action here. - SummerPhD ( talk) 05:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur Train discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• England ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Kingdom of England ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HWallis1993 ( talk · contribs)
• Rob984 ( talk · contribs)
• Theno2003 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am contacting the board concerning the removal of the Royal Banner of England, the removal of the motto, the removal of any governmental information and the removal of the date of the unification of England. All of these things are widely accepted and are in wide use, however through a period of unchallenged editing by Rob984 the damage wrought on articles concerning England, particularly national symbols and items of heraldry, is simply unbelievable. I am very upset that an individual who has even questioned the status of England as a country has been able to erase so much wonderful history. Single-handedly, Rob has reduced the England article from a colourful and informative Wikipedia page to a bland and boring entry that displays England more as a region or subdivision of the United Kingdom rather than a country in its own right with a vast and wonderful history. It is not just the current article on England, but also the pages on the Kingdom of England, the Protectorate, and several more have suffered vandalism from Rob. Rob's arguments for the removal of these items are that they were not sufficienctly well established (in his opinion) to be able to represent England on the Wikipedia Page. What Rob does not understand is that with England nothing ever is established, and the country has never had a written constitution, never had de jure flags or motto's, and that the country is/was one with the reigning monarch in its representation. In these discussions Rob has failed to acknowledge these arguments, even admitting at one stage that he did not consider England a country with a significant heritage or heraldic history - and he has gone to great lengths to ensure that readers of Wikipedia believe this.

I would like to quote an article from the England discussion page:

'The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The outcome of discussion is that England is a country.'

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Rob has taken an undemocratic approach and embarked on a campaign to enforce his view of England, one which I and others have found not only theoretically vague and incorrect but also very offensive. I am unable to reverse his edits and therefore I am requesting some kind of intervention.

How do you think we can help?

I am not the only one to question Rob984's despairingly aggressive editing, with other members chipping in and questioning this users domination of English articles, and his attempts to erase England's wonderful history and heraldry. I am unable to contest Rob's editing as I am unable to edit myself for some reason unbeknownst to me but as an Englishman and a big fan of Wikipedia I am requesting an investigation in the user Rob984 and his actions, and am wholeheartedly recommending intervention.

Summary of dispute by Rob984

The removal of the motto and Royal Banner from the infobox of England is per WP:NOR.

The removal of the government section of the infobox of England was not done by myself, although I support the removal, as England has no government. However this has not been discussed.

The removal of the exact unification date of England from the infobox, and body of Kingdom of England and England was agreed per this discussion.

The removal of the motto from the infobox of Kingdom of England is per WP:NOR.

The removal of the flag from the infobox of Kingdom of England is per WP:NOR and I have began a discussion here on the issue with little response. In essence, sources are needed to determine what flag/banner was the primary flag/banner to represent England in the 17th century.

I don't understand the reasoning for this dispute resolution, as I am not aware I am in any on-going disputes on any of these issues with the other 'users involved'.

The other 'users involved' should be aware WP:NOR is a unreserved policy, and it is not my wrong doing that there desires don't adhere to this policy.

Regards, Rob ( talk |  contribs) 20:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Theno2003

England, the Kingdom of England discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Traditional Chinese medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mallexikon ( talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru ( talk · contribs)
• Herbxue ( talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu ( talk · contribs)
• Jim1138 ( talk · contribs)
• Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs)
• 76.107.171.90 ( talk · contribs)
• JzG ( talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn ( talk · contribs)
• Middle 8 ( talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is strong sentiment among several editors to include the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience" into the lede of the TCM article. The source used for this statement is an editorial in Nature ( [4]) saying: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."
I'm against adding "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede. "Pseudoscience" is not a verifiable attribute or fact, it's a derogatory judgement (it basically means "bad"). TCM theory is obviously superstitious bullshit, but "pseudoscience" includes the allegation that TCM is not effective - which we don't know with certainty yet, since research is ongoing. I tried to work towards including "TCM has been labeled both a protoscience and a pseudoscience" to the lede, but ran into steep opposition from the anti-quack crowd.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've argued my view in several talk page threads: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: Pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Pseudoscience, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Protoscience. There also was a previous thread before I stepped in: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article

How do you think we can help?

Give neutral input towards a compromise

Summary of dispute by QuackGuru

With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[8] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[8] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]

The text in the WP:LEDE is a summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:ASSERT. Stating "TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is WP:OR and does not properly summarise the body. The source for protoscience was written by the trade. WP:FRINGE demands we should use independent sources for controversial topics. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Herbxue

The term pseudoscience is a derogatory term that relies on the premise that the subject holds itself out as a science. TCM does not - it is called "Traditional Chinese Medicine" - clearly stating that it comes from a specific tradition outside of contemporary bioscience. Protoscience is more accurate, but both are outside judgements, not clear descriptions.

Beyond that, I do not believe the case has been made that the scientific and medical communities are in unison in labeling TCM pseudoscience - only a few missionaries for science vs. superstition, people that are on a mission to make a point. That does not mean that the general medical consensus has been formed. It is more responsible for us to include this opinion/label, but state who is doing the labeling. Herbxue ( talk) 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu

The material in question is fully justified by the source given, which is impeccable in accordance with out policies and guidelines. Our policies also require that we clearly identify non-conventional and fringe positions, and treat them in context with prevailing scholarly opinion, which in this case is overwhelming negative.

The argument that we cannot use the word "pseudoscience" because it is derogatory is absurd. It clearly applies in this case, and if TCM practitioners are offended, that is not WP's problem.

The OP has been trying to argue from the standpoint of "cultural sensitivity", which has no basis in WP policies or guidelines.

As far as I am concerned, the matter has been resolved. There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jim1138

I agree with Adam and D.V. The matter is resolved. I would argue that the "pseudoscience" label should be in the first sentence, and not the last sentence, of the lede. BTW: there are more discussions in the archives then what is listed above in the "...resolve this previously" section. Jim1138 ( talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy

What Adam said. It's not Wikipedia's job to fix the fact that TCM is largely based on refuted concepts. Guy ( Help!) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Middle 8: You're misreading it. There is no substantial body of scientific opinion that supports the concepts identified as pseudoscientific, including humours, meridians, qi and the like. Those concepts are justly characterised as pseudoscientific because there is faux-scientific inquiry into them (e.g. the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies - how can you study meridians given the fact that they do not exist?). What we say, as I see it, is that TCM is based in significant part on pseudoscientific and pre-scientific concepts. That's an accurate statement of the situation, not a philosophical position to be put up against the position that qi exists, with the NPOV lying somewhere between them. TCM is not, itself, pseudoscience, but much current study of it, is, because it starts form a position of assuming the validity of invalid concepts. See the difference? Guy ( Help!) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Adam Cuerden

Per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE we have to properly contextualize Traditional Chinese Medicine, and that means that the judgement of mainstream academic medicine - a few promising treatments, but mostly pseudoscience - has to appear. This is not a discussion of a historical treatment regime, after all: We are discussing something that is being actively marketed right now, and not just in China. This is not something like the completely-abandoned treatment Theriac, or even like Trepanation, where a historically common treatment with some reasonable uses is largely abandoned outside of a very limited list of valid conditions, or by an extreme fringe, quickly dismissable. In contrast, the name Traditional Chinese Medicine is itself a marketing term, and the construct defined as TCM is a combination of many historical, modified historical, and questionably historical medical practices from China. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 76.107.171.90

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

We have a good source which refers to the "obvious" fact that TCM is largely pseudoscience; so should Wikipedia. Seems fine in the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Middle 8

(tl;dr) This couldn't be simpler: just say "some, such as X, consider TCM to be pseudoscience" and move on. The Nature editorial is one of many sources, and not the best. See WP:ASSERT and WP:FRINGE/PS and (e.g.) the Shermer source below.

(a bit more) Weigh the better sources. Look to experts on the demarcation problem, i.e., what is and is not science. Acupuncture, the best-known modality of TCM in the West, is addressed by Michael Shermer, in a chapter from Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and M. Boudry (2013). Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. Shermer and Pigliucci are well-respected scientific skeptics.

The demarcation problem is extensively debated among experts, and subject to varying criteria and conclusions. Exercises like the one below (about the nature of TCM and so on) are fun and interesting, but we should follow sources in light of WP:FRINGE/PS (which is based on NPOV). That tells us that as long as we have a significant view that a topic is other than outright pseudoscience, it falls under "questionable science", which should "not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific". All that's needed, for statements about TCM being pseudoscience, is to present them as sourced opinion rather than fact. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Guy, 18:27, 9 May 2014: (rewriting after more careful reading) OK, actually I have virtually no disagreement with what you say at all. "What we say, as I see it, is that TCM is based in significant part on pseudoscientific and pre-scientific concepts." -- yes. What I object to is QuackGuru's insistence on wording that goes further and/or is more vague than what you just said, and is based on a misreading of the source: Talk:Acupuncture#More_re_TCM_.26_pseudoscience_wording -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by bobrayner

Adam Cuerden makes good points. However, I'm a little concerned about labels like "the anti-quack crowd". Certainly there are several editors approaching this problem from a similar perspective, but let's try not to lump people together - I think that's part of the problem rather than part of the solution, as wikipedia's most intractable disputes are based on tribal editing. bobrayner ( talk) 09:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine discussion

Please try to answer the questions below, if we are to try for consensus, its good to know what we are not arguing about. Your DRN volunteer. -- Bejnar ( talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This was actively being discussed on talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience Jim1138 ( talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am a DRN volunteer. You have asked for help resolving whether or rather to what extent "pseudoscience" should be mentioned in the lead (lede). From reading the article, and a good sampling of the discussion, the problem seems to lie more in the article than in the lead. The lead is to summarize the article, but the there is no real organized discussion of the extent of successfully proved, still contested, and proved unfounded treatments. Where mentioned, usually under efficacy, the article is a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. It is possible that energy spent on improving the article in this regard would help resolve the lead question. There also seems to be occasional confusion between treatments and physiological concepts. Lets see if there are some areas of agreement. For that purpose please answer separately under each question. Keeping discussion brief and to the point (focused on content only). Disclosure: On 14 April 2014, I commented on an Afd at Chinese Herbal Extract Granules. I believe that my statements there are neutral with respect to this DRN, but if you believe otherwise, or have another basis to question my neutrality, please use the subsection below to request my recusal. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the continuing changes in the lead (lede) with regard to the placement and emphasis of "pseudoscience", this dispute still seems to be active. I note that while quotations are rarely appropriate in the lead, that the current version contains one dealing with pseudoscience. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The "dispute" is "active" in as much as the filing party will not accept any answer other than removal of the phrase he dislikes, however many experienced editors, admins and what have you, point out that it's verifiable, accurate, well sourced and true. To put it bluntly: the "dispute" can best be resolved by telling the one editor who insists on removing the text against overwhelming consensus, to shut up. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. There are multiple editors that believe the phrase is not appropriate, and we are not trying to whitewash the article of the very prevalent opinion that TCM is pseudoscience. There are legitimate concerns with the neutrality of making a POV conclusion in the lede of an article based on one editorial and the fact that some of you think that it is "obviously" pseudoscience. Herbxue ( talk) 00:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Trying to delete well sourced text from the lede at TCM did not work. So what is the next step. Rewriting the text at the various articles to bring doubt to the term pseudoscience. When the idea is to undermine what the reliable source says by whitewashing term pseudoscience when you or another editor can't delete it from the lede, that is not a content dispute. That is a battle ground mentality. The same thing happened to the lede at TCM. There is no point to having quotes in the lede or adding "has been described as". The text largely pseudoscience was correct before. This has been escalated to ANI. See here. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that QG wants to use a source speculating that TCM probably is just pseudoscience to include an assertion that TCM is pseudoscience. This would be violating WP:ASSERT. On top of that, WP:FRINGE explicitly says that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources". However, QG got quite some support for his edit, since there is a number of anti-TCM editors working on this article who are extremely eager to include the term "pseudoscience" as often as possible to the article's lede, even if they have to base their assertion on an inadequate source. And I don't even want to say that they are totally wrong - TCM has elements of pseudoscience. But bending the rules to make a POV point is unworthy of WP. And we want to be a great encyclopaedia, not Quackwatch.

We've been hammering out consensus about this "pseudoscience" edit at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience. Please take a look. My rationale seems to have been accepted by other editors, and we followed the compromise (suggested by Richard Keatinge) to continue using the source but change the text to "It has been described as 'fraught with pseudoscience'".

I see it with much concern that anti-TCM editors like Dominus Vobisdu ("There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again") and Jim1138 ("The matter is resolved") don't seem to understand the basic concept of WP:DRN, and don't seem to even try to understand the point of view of others (in this case, that'd be Richard Keatinge, Herbxue, Jayaguru-Shishya and me). And I find it very interesting that QG is on the one hand backing up JzG here, who's idea of compromise is that everybody who is not following QG's controversial edit should "shut up", while QG on the other hand accuses everybody who is not following his controversial edit of "battle ground mentality"... Seriously, who is the one displaying battle ground mentality here? -- Mallexikon ( talk) 03:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nature source is not speculating that TCM probably is just pseudoscience. The source says it is "largely pseudoscience" but you personally don't agree that TCM is largely pseudoscience. There is no reason to violate assert because you disagree with the source. You haven't shown there is a serious disagreement among reliable sources. The disagreement must be among reliable sources not editors.

When you are continuing to violate WP:ASSERT by adding weasel words not found in the source that is more evidence this is not a content dispute. QuackGuru ( talk) 10:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nature source is an editorial and shouldn't be depicted as fact or general consensus; see WP:RS/AC. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out the obvious, there is no love lost between me and QuackGuru. Apparently anybody who supports inclusion of what is, after all, a widely discussed problem with TCM, is somehow acting in concert. I don't buy that. TCM is based on refuted theories of anatomy, and that much investigation of it embodies the assumption that this refutation does not exist - including a "journal of acupuncture and meridian studies" which includes "scientific" discussions of qi and meridians, despite the fact that there is zero empirical evidence for the existence of either. The sources for the claim that it is considered to embody much pseudoscience, are appropriate to the claim, in prominence, reliability and expertise. Reasonable people may differ on the exact wording, but exclusion is not really an option. Guy ( Help!) 09:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording should reflect the standard NPOV approach, and say that "according to X and Y, TCM is pseudoscientific". It's a common stance, but there isn't (yet, anyway) general consensus to that effect. If there were, prominent skeptics like Shermer wouldn't be hedging: that should be apparent to informed, objective people, I think. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Note -- but it is factual that "TCM theory" (meridians, qi etc.) is pseudoscience (factual enough; if there is no significant minority of RS's disagreeing then that's adequate). And this can be presented as fact. But to say TCM as a whole is pseudoscience (or to say something vague like "fraught with" or "largely") should be attributed. (per my below remarks) -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Does Shermer mention TCM specifically? And does he address the question of whether or not it is "largely" (of "full of" or "mainly") pseudoscience? This is an obvious fact, sourced, and not in serious dispute. We should avoid attributing it so as not to give a false impression that it's contested information, as that would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 12:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't assume Shermer would agree with all that. Read the source and you'll see he considers acupuncture as a whole, including its testability (aka falsifiability). He doesn't ask whether acu is more "full of" science (testability) or pseudoscience (meridians, qi, etc.); his approach -- which includes multiple, incommensurable criteria -- precludes such a question.

Shermer is obviously a significant view, at least as weight-y as the Nature editorial, which means we should use attribution. Since he doesn't include acu under pseudoscience, we can't assume he'd include TCM, of which acu is a major subset, and herbs another testable subset.

A comment regarding our different approaches to demarcation: Alexbrn, I've noticed that you've tended to focus almost exclusively on meridians and qi and the like, and it's usually someone else who says, "but wait -- testability can be a criterion as well" (e.g., [5]). Since you've tended to disregard the latter, I'm not surprised you say it's so obvious that acu and/or TCM are mainly pseudoscientific, because you're focusing on the parts like meridians and qi that really are. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 16:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The source Middle 8 is discussing has no bearing on this discussion. This is off-topic. The source is not even about TCM.

At the Acupuncture talk page Middle 8 alleged: This edit improved the lede by using language according to the source.

Using in-text attribution is a violation of ASSERT and "has been described" was not found in the source. Adding quotes to the lede was also rubbish.

There is evidence that Mallexikon is edit-warring. And since Mallexikon continually add material at TCM and Acupuncture without consensus, he's not very persuasive there is a consensus for the change. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] He also violating assert at TCM because there never was a serious dispute. He dumped this source at the acupuncture page against consensus and he personally thinks it is speculating that TCM is probably just pseudoscience. It seems like he is editing according to his personal belief and not according to reliable sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement that "TCM is fraught with pseudoscience" is too vague, and should either be attributed or improved upon.

• Saying "TCM includes pseudoscientific concepts" without attribution should be fine. There's not much debate over meridians and qi being pseudo.
• Saying "TCM is pseudoscience" without attribution is going too far. (Extant sources don't meet WP:BURDEN, and cf. scholars who note the falsifiability criterion vis-à-vis efficacy).

The best thing when writing without attribution is to be specific. Saying something like "TCM is fraught with pseudoscience" is borderline and vague. It's better and easier to say that "TCM theory" (meridians, qi) is considered pseudoscience, and for anything further, just use attribution. I know some editors will claim not to understand this, but I think it's a pretty straightforward application of WP:ASSERT (NPOV). -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You claim: Saying "TCM includes pseudoscientific concepts" without attribution should be fine.

That's not what the source says. I prefer the text to be clearer and more accurate according to the source.

The "TCM theory" is a separate issue. You are conflating different issues together. The lede should be clear on both issues: the theory as well as the herbal treatments. The text can be more specific in lede and clearer on the different issues. You know how I edit. I can make it extremely clear in the lede and body. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that's not what the source says, but it's a fact, whereas the source's wording ("fraught") is vague and verging on opinion, which is why I suggest it should be attributed. The "TCM theory" is exactly what is undisputedly pseudo about TCM per multiple other sources, and refuted by few if any. So that's fine to assert as fact. Not the other wording. That's my perspective; I understand yours; we disagree, and are unlikely to change each others' minds, so let's focus on compromises. I thought Richard Keatinge's solution on Talk:TCM was perfectly reasonable, as did multiple others. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer is to use the text, "According to [author of Nature article], TCM is largely pseudoscience."

I've read a lot of studies that evaluate TCM in a scientific manner. What they usually find is that the TCM does treat the condition in question, just not as well as modern medicine does. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Uniary or not

Do the physiological concepts underlying TCM treatments constitute a consistent whole?

Yes, forms a consistent whole

Paul Unschuld would probably say no, but IMO that's mainly for historic reasons. The way that TCM presents itself today, yes, the underlying theory seems to be a consistent whole. -- Mallexikon ( talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, merely a conglomeration

No, there are several distinct parts of it, including acupuncture and herbalism. Guy ( Help!) 12:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As a science

Does TCM holds itself out as a science?

For those who believe pseudoscience should not be in lead

For those who believe pseudoscience should be in lead

It presents itself as medicine, and pseudoscience is generally used for medicine as well. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}

In lead but attributed unless claim is specifically related to "TCM theory" (meridians, qi) -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TCM currently presents itself in China and in the West as medicine —an applied science— but it does not follow the scientific method. The description and categorization as "pseudoscience" is granted by this fact, and it must not be minimized by reducing it to a person's opinion, but to its obvious lack of scientific methodology. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 07:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BatteryIncluded and Adam Cuerden on this point, but apart from whether or not it's pseudoscience, we have to consider emphasis - and something which undermines the very basis of TCM surely deserves a prominent place in the lede. bobrayner ( talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience through and through. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 13:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It presents itself as a field in which there is active scientific inquiry, e.g. the journal "Acupuncture and Meridian Studies". Quote how you're supposed to study something like meridians, for which there is no good evidence to suggest they even exist, is not explained. There are also many papers seeking to explain how acupuncture works, starting from the premise that it does, whereas if you ask does acupuncture work, you tend to find the answer is no, or at least not beyond non-specific (i.e. placebo) effects. Guy ( Help!) 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think pseudoscience should be in the lede (since TCM's theoretical basis is obviously unscientific and superstitious), but not in a sentence stating that TCM is (largely) pseudoscience - since pseudoscience, by definition, implies that the treatments derived from a given theory are not effective. But we don't know whether acupuncture or (some?) traditional herbal treatments work or not. Research is ongoing, and opposed to what Guy said above, the answer to whether acupuncture works better than placebo or not is not "no", but "probably, but with a clinical effect that probably is negligible". As I said before, a sentence like "TCM has been described as pseudoscience" would be much more appropriate. -- Mallexikon ( talk) 04:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Treatment s as science

Are treatments a science?

Testability of claims to treat is a hallmark of science (See: falsifiability). So in that respect, TCM is not pseudoscience. That said, I don't think it's our job to demarcate TCM; we should look to RS's. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Concepts vs. treatment

Would a distinction between TCM physiological concepts and TCM treatments help?

Yes. TCM theory is superstitious, but it is too early to judge whether acupuncture and TCM herbs are useless (even though there is some evidence that they are). -- Mallexikon ( talk) 05:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Efficacy

Does efficacy of a treatment make the alleged basis for a treatment science?

Testability is indicative of science, but something can work and still have pseudoscientific aspects (e.g. traditional acupuncture for pain, when the explanation is qi and meridians). But again -- demarcation isn't our job. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Is the DRN volunteer neutral?

Disclosure

Editor QuackGuru has made comments on my talk page, and I have responded with respect to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and the purposes and procedures of DRN. I do not believe that my responses are less than neutral, but please feel free to read them. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Chicago blues ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wpwatchdog ( talk · contribs)
• MadScientistX11 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a dispute between 2 editors on inclusion of Harmonica Hinds in the Notable musicians section of the Chicago blues article. The disagreement centers around the meaning of "notable musician" and whether an artist qualifies as notable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Review the discussion on Criteria for Notable Chicago Blues Musicians section of Talk:Chicago blues and offer a neutral opinion whether Harmonica Hinds qualifies as a notable musician. The dispute will be resolved because Watchdog will abide by the opinion.

Summary of dispute by MadScientistX11

Talk: Chicago blues discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Mudvayne ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SonOfPlisskin ( talk · contribs)
• 192.42.92.110 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• This also includes all subpages such as band members, albums, and songs.*

An editor with the IP address 192.42.92.110 has been making changes to the Mudvayne page that only he seems to support. User is trying to make progressive metal the only valid genre for the bad, despite there being sources that say otherwise, including sites like Allmusic and Rolling Stone, which Wikipedia lists as "reliable". Progressive metal is rarely considered to be their "main" genre. He keeps using the same three sources, two of which are dead links, and one of which only contains an incidental mention of progressive metal and is focused on their image. Most of the time, the links are irrelevant to the songs or albums in questions as well. It's worth noting that he brought the same edit warring to TVropes. He seems to want to whitewash any mention of them playing nu-metal, maybe because he's embarrassed to like a nu-metal band or I don't know. Technically, he hasn't broken the 3RR rule, but I'm getting tired of reverting all his many changes (and this for a band I don't even care about).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried reaching a compromise by using a more generic "metal" tag and blanking the genre fields (except in the cases of the band members where I reverted it to how it was before he made his initial changes). I also started a discussion on the Mudvayne page (I was logged out when I did that), but the user took it upon himself to redo his changes without proper discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Warning him about edit wars and explaining to him how reliable sources work would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by 192.42.92.110

Mudvayne discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Suzannah Lipscomb ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MdeBohun ( talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Suzannah Lipscomb is separated from her husband and getting divorced. The Red Pen of Doom consistantly adds that her book Visitors Companion to Tudor England is dedicated to her husband Drake despite being asked to desist. Prior to that he tried to show the marriage by referencing to a page that another editor said was not appropriate. No reference is made to whom her other books are dedicated, so it is clear that The Red Pen of Doom clearly has an agenda. He is now threatening that I will be blocked, using formal writing as if he is Wikipedia, when it is he who should be blocked. The subject does not wish information on her failed marriage to be public knowledge.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The Red Pen of Doom

How do you think we can help?

Stop The Red Pen of Doom from consistently entering information that is disingenuous as it implies that the subject is married, when she is not.

Summary of dispute by TRPoD TheRedPenOfDoom

The introduction by @ MdeBohun: is incorrect about at least one item, in that I was the editor adamantly removing inappropriately sourced content about the marriage/divorce [11] [12] [13] . The IP eventually produced Lipscomb's own verification of the marriage in a reliably published and editorial over-sighted manner.

To the point of the dispute: Marriage is a significant non trivial aspect of a persons life that is standard for inclusion. We now have a reliably published source, by the subject herself, and so there is no valid reason not to include it.

We are not here to provide a promotional blurb reflecting (what is claimed to be) the subject's whitewashed version of history. WP:NPOV .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy

Suzannah Lipscomb dedicated a book to her husband. This trivium is easily verifiable and accurate. One editor, The Red Pen of Doom, wants the fact included because he believes it to be sufficiently significant. One editor, the filing party, who has no history on Wikipedia unrelated to Suzannah Lipscomb, wants the fact removed on the basis that Ms. Lipscomb now wishes to distance herself from the person to whom she unambiguously and verifiably dedicated the book.

Whatever the merits of the argument for inclusion (which I think are weak given the preference of the author), the argument for exclusion is simply not grounded in policy. This argument, grounded as it is in WP:IDONTLIKEIT not on policy or sources, has necessarily been unpersuasive and will remain so.

If Ms. Lipscomb now wishes that she had not dedicated a book to her former husband, then unfortunately she will need to avail herself of a time traveller. I can put her in touch with someone, but he's only done it once before and her safety is not guaranteed. Guy ( Help!) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GRuban

We've got one item of info, one line in a book dedication. We don't have a last name, or anything else to identify the husband. We don't have a date they got married, or a date they got divorced. If we had all that, then, yes, we should include it, marriages are generally important to people (certain pop singers excluded). As is, though, the information is being challenged (bolded, as WP:BLP would have it) and that one line just doesn't meet the standard of the "high quality sources" that WP:BLP demands in general and especially in the case of such a (bolded) challenge. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

Suzannah Lipscomb discussion

• - there are four objections to this addition with the available reference in this talk page chat - /info/en/?search=Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband Mosfetfaser ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Typically the name of someone to whom a book is dedicated would not be considered significant enough to mention, unless perhaps the "dedicatee" had played a significant role in creating the book. No one has explained why this should be an exception. (Also, the comments here and on the talkpage about "different life choices" and "a time traveler" are completely unhelpful.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• this is not about the "dedication". it is about the significant life event that the subject of the article self documented and made public and that for some reason people think that history should be whitewashed and re-written to remove the evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• So, mention that she was married in a Personal Life section. Include that fact (although it is very incomplete information) and use the dedication as a reference in the footnotes. But to have a separate section of the article composed of a book dedication is not done for other authors. In fact, I don't think I've seen book dedications quoted on Wikipedia or even mentioned in the body of an article for a living author. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

as far as I am aware there has never been a separate section for "the dedication". the content was included in the personal life section [14]. And the content was phrased as "dedicated her book to her husband" to avoid any accusations of WP:OR on what has been a contentious issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• The fact is that she was married. This is information relevant to any article about a human being. The source being a book dedication is unusual, but not unreliable in any way. The only argument I'm seeing for removing this information is that the subject isn't happy being reminded that she was married to the guy. I fail to see how that trumps our goal of providing sourced information about our subjects. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite being filed 10 days ago no DRN volunteer has opened this case. Has the issued been resolved? If so, I'd like to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice -- MdeBohun, has this issue been resolved?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No it hasnt. The contested information is currently not in the article, but there have been no policy based reasons why it should stay removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, that one line just doesn't meet the standard of the "high quality sources". There is no other provable evidence of any marriage. For some reason TheRedPenOfDoom seems to have an agenda which does not appear to be wholly independent, and constantly includes reference to a book dedication, which proves nothing. MdeBohun ( talk) 05:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd assertion. If Lipscomb is determined to be a not reliable source about Lipscomb, then everything else in the article based on Lipscomb's word will need to be removed - that will be pretty much everything and so there will be no article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing summary: This case is listed as dispute between two parties but actually its a dispute with many parties, some of whom have commented here and some who haven't. For this reason I see no point in moderating a discussion between the two names parties especially since there is a clear consensus amongst editors on this page and the talk page for exclusion of the information because it is trivia that uses a primary and incomplete source and does not meet the standard of verification for a BLP. It appears to me that the case the only reason as case was filed here is because one of the parties refuses to recognize the consensus. By my count I see 7 editors who have given valid arguments for it exclusion. Several here and a few more on the talk page. You can add me to the list as well. If this is still and issue then I suggest and filing an RfC.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Ghrelin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Seppi333 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Boghog feels last 2 sentences in lead are important enough to be in Lead, IiKkEe (me) feels those facts are well covered in Structure section and not of sufficient importance to the function of the hormone as an energy homeostasis regulator to warrant being in the lead.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He stated his position on Ghrelin talk page, I stated mine. Our positions have to do with preference, not right and wrong. He feels the two sentences are important enough to stay in Lead, I do not-the subject is discussed in genetics section, along with related minor topics The importance of ghrelin is its function in promoting hunger, regulating fat mass, energy homeostasis, and relation to addiction - not its chemical relationship to other irrelevant proteins and how they are classified.

How do you think we can help?

Find anyone with knowledge of the importance of ghrelin in energy homeostasis to look at the last two sentences in the lead and the same subject in the Genetics section and make a judgment: does confining the lead to matters of major importance to the subject enhance the quality of the page or not? I will gladly accept that decision.

Summary of dispute by Seppi333

Not sure this issue is a content dispute - I really don't care that much. Inclusion of that content is just indicated in MOS:MCB. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ |  Maintained) 08:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ghrelin

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.